And just so you do not think me heartless, I think any company that can should

provide day care and flex time. Study's show repeatedly that this makes for

better happier workers and saves money lost to unplanned days off and overtime.

Any business that is as inflexible as the one you describe should not be able

to find good employees. If you want to fix this vote with your feet and get a

better job. I think from reading your posts below that you are talented enough

to make a better way for your self that includes time for your children, It can't

hurt to look around for one.

Dancer, I think you are making some assumptions about me that are probably confusing. I'll give you some background.

I'm very educated. I have post graduate qualifications and I'm a physics teacher. I am sure you are aware that teachers are constantly expected to pick up the pieces of everyone else's poor child rearing, but our own children are not considered important. They do not have flexible working hours. Schools teach between set times and you are there or else. You are expected to work long hours without extra pay. Attending parents evenings is compulasory. As a colleague of mine used to say "every child matters except your own."

Before I was a teacher I was a civil servant. The working conditions were great and I was given flexible hours and allowed to work from home. Unfortunately when I first started to work there it actually cost me money to work by the time I had paid childcare. It is non sustainable. You can't pay to go to work.

As a single mother you are constantly stuck between a rock and a hard place. You make the best choices you can and you damned from every direction.

Perhaps if someone had forced my the father of my children to help I wouldn't have had to make those choices. How do you force someone to act like a father?
____________Reality Internet Personality

No such thing as a marriage license in my Country till after the civil war. It is just another way for the Fed/state to get into your life and pocket.

There wasn't a marriage law till after the civil war because some people didn't want blacks to marry whites. This is also why gay people point to the change in our Constitution as a right for them to marry. This also isn't true, back then no one who was gay dared to ask for marriage. The amendments added after the war was to grant in stone the fact that black people a people just like anyone else.

The case cant be made that gay people are not people, of coarse they are. The case is do they have a marriage, and that is not true. Over 230 years of prescendance is in fact the law already. DOMA can and should be made as an Amendment. The vote is there for it and Prop 8 confirms that FACT.

Quite true. If they want some mumbling by an appointed enlightened one, they can have that. If they want to be able to check the married box on the tax return and have anyone recognize it to be a marriage, they better head to the government and get the license. Maybe it is time to change the law so priests can't be officiants at weddings. After all the church and state should be separate.

After all the church and state should be separate.

Once again you show your lack of knowledge of the Constitution. The wall statement was Jefferson's quote and the socialist left are the ones who stands this up and incorrectly so. YOU MISAPPLY his statement. Jefferson held Anglican Church services right in the Halls of Congress and this fact crushes you weak and futile argument.

The government doesn't sanction marriage, they get in your pocket for the money and that is all. God sanction marriage.

"government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions."

So if God sanction's marriage as ID suggests, then government can't promote this and would have to drop the married check box off the tax form, drop all the provisions in the codes about estates, drop all provisions in medical laws, get rid of divorce, all children would be bastards, the list goes on an on.

"government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions."

So if God sanction's marriage as ID suggests, then government can't promote this and would have to drop the married check box off the tax form, drop all the provisions in the codes about estates, drop all provisions in medical laws, get rid of divorce, all children would be bastards, the list goes on an on.

Oh dear, it seems a poster here has not realized that your comment was written in the context of the subject at hand, the provisions you referenced relate to marriage status, didn't they?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

"government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions."

So if God sanction's marriage as ID suggests, then government can't promote this and would have to drop the married check box off the tax form, drop all the provisions in the codes about estates, drop all provisions in medical laws, get rid of divorce, all children would be bastards, the list goes on an on.

Oh dear, it seems a poster here has not realized that your comment was written in the context of the subject at hand, the provisions you referenced relate to marriage status, didn't they?

Of course they do.

But, bobby, I'm a them. And as we all know in some posters world a them can never be correct. So if I were to say the sky is blue, it would have find fault with the statement.

That and the post points out the circular logic some posters here cling to more stridently than any faith.

But his rejection of the IRS must mean he rejects the sixteenth amendment. That makes me wonder if he rejects all amendments such as the first and second. Have we uncovered more circular logic?

"government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions."

So if God sanction's marriage as ID suggests, then government can't promote this and would have to drop the married check box off the tax form, drop all the provisions in the codes about estates, drop all provisions in medical laws, get rid of divorce, all children would be bastards, the list goes on an on.

this is dancers room mate

i know of religions that allow same sex and multiple partner marriages

since there are religions out there tat accept these as valid forms of marriage

any laws preventing them from having a marriage of those forms other then man

with women are unconstitutional by the second amendment of the us constitution

by stating that the only marriage allowed is one man and one women they are

accepting the religious beliefs of those religions that believe that way over

I am sure you are aware that teachers are constantly expected to pick up the pieces of everyone else's poor child rearing, but our own children are not considered important.

I can confirm from first hand knowledge, this is sadly true.

Look, this whole thing about same gender relationships or marriage can be whittled down quite a bit to the basics. Traditional figures suggest that 90% of the world is heterosexual, the other 10% are gay. Therefore 90% of the world, or the vast majority, view same gender relationships as un-natural, whatever any religion may teach.

Should gay people have the same legal rights as anyone else? Of course they should, they are still human beings, whatever their personal preferences are. They still pay the same taxes are are subject to the same laws as anyone else.

30 years ago gay people were ostracised from society, and same gender couples went to great lengths to cover up their relationships, especially those in the public eye, such as politicians or show business people. These days we are much more enlightened, and most people have a live and let live attitude to same gender couples co-habiting.

The Marriage bit is controversial because most churches won't do it, whilst most register offices will. If a same gender couple wish to formalise their union then a civil ceremony is possible, but depending upon their religion, a church service probably isn't. If their religion forbids it they wouldn't want to do it anyway.

So to sum up, Society is tolerant, the church isn't, the law should be above any discrimination. We still have a way to go.

False. Not all heterosexuals are bigots, do not condemn everything which differs from ourselves as "un-natural."

I thought that I had made the point, that I was quite happy with non heterosexuals entering into relationships, whether generally acceptable or not. I am not a bigot, the problem is with the others that are.